Conundrum: Speed Vs. People Vs. Quality

With basically everything from dating to school assignments to answers to the most basic or complex questions at a swipe or click of a button, it comes as no surprise that executive teams, across all forms & sizes of industry has adopted and built into their strategies the notion and practice of "Speed". I mean, gaining that competitive advantage requires every effort and metric firing at all cylinders - firing as fast as bandwidth allows, literally. So "Speed" only makes sense. Or does it?

Speed and its relationship with People and Quality in all forms in the workplace is certainly not a "new" concept, nor a uncommon or widely researched topic. The practice of speed in business has seen a sometimes unrealistic and counter-intuitive pressure placed on the People within a business met with this Strategic Principle / Value / Objective etc. Don't get me wrong, there are countless, quantified, validated and verified positives where the relationship between Speed & People co-exist seamlessly and productively. This writing however is not an argument for the positive (or negative) existence of the phenomena of Speed Vs. People - in fact its necessary to survive in todays competitive climate - but rather, this article is a open perspective to support the awareness of business decision makers when considering strategies or objectives requiring Speed as critical success factor.

In my experience over the last decade, I have in my roles, but I am equally sure those that share my profession, come under increased pressure to grow people at the same rate of speed at which the business and its technology grows and/or is planned to grow, if not faster. Seems simple right? Wrong!! And herein exists what I call "The Considerations of People Strategy & Development in the 'millennia' of Speed". (This might just be my next thesis / research topic so don't steal it. Lol!)

Lets consider, for example: Company X's sales target is to grow its Sales turnover by 15% over the next FinYr. This all in an effort to supports its Key Strategic Objective of Increasing Market Share by just 5% over the next 3 Years... Sounds familiar right? RIGHT...

See, the problem with objectives such as this is that it often does not explicitly include the role people play in its achievement - more often than not, people are an assumed inclusion based on the understanding of the internal-micro environment of the business at a certain place and time. I.e. How much staff / skills / functions etc. exist, giving validity to set objectives. Why is this the case?: (I share just 3 key motivations based on my experience, so happily stand corrected on any & all 'opinion' - & yes, I know there is a million more...)

1. HR &/or People Functions are traditionally seen and treated as "Strategically Supporting or Informing" functions, rather than, & I dare say, a "Strategically Leading" functions. Its the same reason why a Chief People Officer would rarely be promoted to CEO, or why HR/L&D is seen as a Cost Centre rather than a Profit Centre... - (We'll expand on and revisit this later in this article and more comprehensively in follow up articles.)
2. Due to #1, Speed to Competence and subsequently its drawing (negative) or driving (positive) impact on set objectives is ill-informed, mis-informed or at the best of times, not informed at all. In short, should the achievement of the aforementioned objective depend, in a single instance by example, on the integration, onboarding/training & utilisation of a new or improved CRM/Sales tool, it would be wise of business decision makers to spend time understanding the complexities of a tool & how its end-to-end learning and use affects the achievement of objectives and/or timelines.
3. Operational Tools / Technology, while promoting productivity and efficiency, changes or updates often occur faster than any individual can learn, unlearn & re-learn. This is a fact so easily and often underestimated and under-valued when setting out objectives and making decisions for the future. This is perpetuated by the fact that the identification of, development of and/or integration of a particular tool is done at a specific point in time. "Its the right tool for us now..." Yes, when viewed from an strategic-operational objective perspective. With this then the position business executives take around #1 & #2 could play a pivotal role in the accurate determination of the best means to support the achievement of strategic objectives.

Did you know: on average, only 30% of staff, after extensive training & onboarding, fully adopt a new process or tool within the 1st year. (Unless governed by strict rules, protocols, deadlines etc. Then cultural entropy & true positive productivity comes into question. A whole other article for future I'd say...)

Needless to say, and perhaps its understood why business executives leave "people considerations" to the "people-people": It can become a complex and tricky path to map, & when investors are seeking ROI, hearing about an increase in learning engagement is not a (traditionally) tangible metric. It then begs the question: if its better to leave the "people-people" to do what they do, how then do we (Execs) ensure that "people considerations" translate into our strategy?

1. Acknowledge the role of the e.g. Chief People Officer (CPO) as Strategically Leading, not just Supporting / Informing. Afterall, when a business grows from 10 to 100 staff in a single year without breaking down on itself, someone somewhere knew how to manage that and get it done. Therefore in the boardroom it means 1 simple thing: when decisions are made, seek genuine input, data & where applicable, timeline from the CPO. When they say "it can't be done", trust them & re-adjust your objective accordingly and inline with all other leading functions.
2. Understand the trade-off between Speed & Quality. Where the development, implementation / integration of learning is concerned, Speed, People and Quality are often unable to productively and positively co-exist. We can't always have both and we need to be very clear on the risks of either when determining the approach to planning or meeting strategic objectives. I like to express this in simpler terms to executives when we speak: "the risk of incorrect messaging via people strategy (as result of doing it too quickly), can be as damaging as marketing signing off on incorrect pricing placed on a product billboard on the highway..." Again, trust the expert in the room...
3. Always be aware that at the end of every Strategic objective is a person needing to execute on it to achieve it. The complexity, changes or adaptations to strategic objectives impact on the people in your business in different ways, shapes and forms. This even more so when scale & growth is key. Its not about "work-life-balance", you know, the nice words on the walls. Its about truly investing in understanding how certain objectives could or could not be met by critically evaluating the capacity, capability and/or competence of the people. Again, trust the expert in the room.

As much as it is the responsibility of the CPO to make their voice heard and share their inputs, it is the responsibility of the Executive to listen and apply!!... and this starts back at #1, acknowledging the role of the CPO as strategically leading, not just supporting or informing.

Perhaps company X's 2023 sales target should read something like this: "Company X aims to grow its Sales turnover by 15% over the next FinYr by ensuring its sales competency and CRM tool use rates are at +90% across all sales personnel." Sounds better, doesn't it? More inclusive? More explicit? and genuinely more considerate of the People expected to execute on what's Strategic?

In summary: Speed, People and Quality can co-exist seamlessly, only if the experts within this field are trusted to lead, not just support or provide information. Speed should also not be confused with Agility (or Agile), its not the same thing. Even worse, Speed should certainly not be confused with being untidy, disorganised or inconsiderate just because the trade-off or cost may be understood and accepted.

"Sometimes to speed up, we need to slow down..."

My name is Duane Botha, a learner and people strategy professional at heart. While I acknowledge that there is much I am yet to learn & experience, there is also much I have learnt & experienced. I work to support business across all industry, big & small, navigate the relationship between Strategy and the People required to execute on it. Let me know how I can assist you or your organisation, and if I can't assist you, I know many people that could and we'll all learn together!! Looking forward to hearing from you.

DB

#peoplestrategy #peopledevelopment #learninganddevelopment #hrconsulting #managementconsulting #chiefpeopleofficer